[ATMoB-discuss] Emailing Monthly Newsletter

[Bruce Gerhard]

Bernie,

I guess I should have been more specific about my difficulty if the 
newsletter file is available only on the Web Site.  I am one of those 
who still ues a dial-up connection, and, in addition, I read my Email on 
a UNIX server using the mail reader program Pine.  Reading Email by this 
method is the best protection aginst viruses that can be found.  I can 
download attachments without leaving Unix, but downloading from a web 
site is much more complicated.  To download from a Web site I must save 
the link -- probably on the clip board -- then break the Unix 
connection, load a Web brouser, establish a PPP connection, open the Web 
site, and then download.  The actual time for the download is the same 
whether it is done from Unix or from a Web site.  If there is a choice 
between getting an attachment and downloading from the Web Site that 
would be satisfactory.  The only advantage I can see to putting it on 
the Web Site is that people can read it without downloading.  I 
certainly want to be able to print a hard copy, and I would expect that 
most people would also.

As Michael A pointed out, HTML is not suitable for printing.  In spite 
of a mumber of efforts, I have never been able to get a print-out from 
HTML that even vaguely approaches acceptability.

Clear skies,
Bruce Gerhard <bruceg at TheWorld.com>


On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:

> We are not planning on changing the format - it would continue to be in
> PDF. As an example, click on
> http://www.atmob.org/newsletters/200606.pdf.
>
> As a URL would be included in the mail (as per above), this should be no
> more steps - today you click to open the attachment; with this change,
> you'd click on the URL, a browser window is opened and the PDF document
> is displayed (yes, both the browser and Acrobat need to run, so the
> computer is doing an additional step but you are not). The newsletter is
> PUBLICLY available, so there is no need for you to log in to the web
> site.
>
> There are also advantages to NOT sending it. The size of the PDF varies
> - from 50KB to 1.5MB (the average size for the 65 newsletters I have is
> 400KB). If you're still a dial-up user, this means it takes a while for
> the email to download (at least 1 minutes for 56Kb dial-up). If you're
> interested in reading it, that time will always be there. But, if you
> don't want to do it right away or at all (hopefully not the case!) ...
> Of course, the down side is that you can't view it offline if it was
> never downloaded.
>
> We are also discussing increasing the size and content of the newsletter
> (as the core reason for the current format has been the
> paper/copying/mailing costs) - with electronic distribution, there is
> virtually no increase in cost for more pages.
>
> As we now have more advanced technology with the new web site, a
> solution might be to allow you to select whether you want to receive it
> as an attachment or as a URL (so, you may three choices - the third
> being to receive a paper copy via US Mail).
>
> - Bernie
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruce Gerhard [mailto:bruceg at theworld.com]
>> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:12 PM
>> To: Bernie Volz (volz)
>> Cc: atmob-discuss at atmob.org
>> Subject: RE: [ATMoB-discuss] Emailing Monthly Newsletter
>>
>> Bernie,
>>
>> The reason for sending the news letter as an attachment is that it can
>> be in PDF format.  PDF allows the recipient to print a high
>> quality hard
>> copy quickly and easily.  The Adobe Acrobat reader (which handles PDF)
>> can be downloaded free, so anyone can handle PDF.  This is not true of
>> any other format I know of.
>>
>> Sending the newsletter as an attachment to email is a minimal
>> amount of
>> work for the person sending it (I did it for another organization for
>> several years) and very convenient for the person receiving
>> it.  Putting
>> it on the web site would be satisfactory if -- and only if -- it would
>> be possible to download if in PDF format.  It would probably be more
>> work for the sender and certainly be clumsy for the receiver,
>> involving
>> at least one additional step. What is done now is very satisfactory.
>> Why change it?
>>
>> Clear skies,
>> Bruce Gerhard <bruceg at TheWorld.com>
>